Leny Riovaldez was born on April 13, 1986 to the couple Eliseo and Norma Riovaldez,
residents of San Diego Street,
Canumay, Valenzuela.[1]
The couple had another daughter, Ellen.Normas first cousin, then 29-year-old Exequiel Mahinay (Kuya Ese),
lived near their house.[2]
During the school year 1997-1998, Leny was already in Grade V.

At about 7:00 p.m. on August 24, 1997, Leny was playing
near their house with Nonoy, Jay-R and Inday.[3]
Lenys father was at work.Momentarily,
Exequiel arrived and told Leny to fetch water from the house of her Ate Nena,
about twenty to thirty meters away.Leny
did as she was told.[4]
Exequiel then ordered Leny to look for his common-law wife, Rowena Guillero, at
the house of her Ate Nena.Leny returned
and told Exequiel that Rowena was not there.[5]
Exequiel ordered Leny and Nonoy to go with him to look for Rowena at the house
of one Ilon.Leny and Nonoy agreed.Exequiel, Leny and Nonoy went to the said
house but failed to find Rowena there.Exequiel and the two children decided to go home.Exequiel told Nonoy to go ahead.[6]
As they neared Ate Nenas house, Exequiel suddenly held Leny by the hand and
dragged her to a grassy area.Leny tried
to run away but Exequiel pulled her down to the ground.She pushed him and shouted for help, but
Exequiel covered her mouth with his hand.[7]
He then removed Lenys T-shirt, bra, shorts and panties, and kissed her on her
lips.He himself removed his shirt,
shorts and brief, and laid on top of her.Leny tried to shout, but Exequiel choked her.He then inserted his penis, which was already
hard, into her vagina.Leny felt pain in
her vagina, and felt something hot afterwards.[8]
She felt dizzy and weak.Satiated,
Exequiel then removed his penis, licked Lenys vagina and spat on it.[9]
He warned Leny not to tell anyone what he had done to her.Exequiel initially put P900 in her
pocket, but took back P600.Before leaving, Exequiel threatened to kill her and her family if she
reported the incident.[10]
Leny then put her clothes back on and went back home with Exequiel.

Leny was in the province when she received a letter from her
sister Ellen that Exequiel had raped her.[11]
When her aunt Vilma arrived, Leny revealed that Exequiel had also raped her in
Valenzuela.[12]
On March 8, 1998, Leny
finally told her mother Norma that she was raped by Exequiel on August 24, 1997.Norma was furious at her daughter for not
telling her about the incident much earlier.[13]

On May 27, 1998,
Norma brought Leny to Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez, Medico-Legal Officer of the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, who forthwith subjected Leny to a
genital examination and prepared a report containing the following findings:

FINDINGS:

GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:

Fairly developed, fairly nourished and
coherent female subject.Breasts are
conical with light brown areola and nipples from which no secretions could be
pressed out.Abdomen is flat and soft.

GENITAL:

There is moderate growth of pubic hair.Labia majora are slightly gaping with pinkish
brown labia minora presenting in between.On separating the same disclosed an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with deep
healed laceration at 5 oclock and
shallow healed at 3 and 9 oclock
positions.External vaginal orifice
offers moderate resistance to the introduction of the examining index
finger.Vaginal canal is narrow with
prominent rugosities.Cervix is firm and
closed.

CONCLUSION:

Subject is in non-virgin state
physically.

There are no external signs of recent
application of any form of violence.

REMARKS:

Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are
NEGATIVE for gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa.[14]

On May 28, 1998,
Norma gave her sworn statement to SPO1 Jesus Sagisi.[15]
Leny gave a separate sworn statement to the policeman on the same date.[16]

On December 22, 1998,
Exequiel was charged with rape in an Information filed with the RTC of
Valenzuela City, Branch 171, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 24th day of August 1997 in
Valenzuela, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation
employed upon the person of one LENNY (sic)
RIOVALDEZ y POSADA, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have sexual intercourse with the said LENNY RIOVALDEZ y POSADA, against her
will and without her consent.

Exequiel, now the accused, was arraigned, assisted by counsel,
and entered a plea of not guilty.

The accused denied raping Leny.He testified that the charge against him was instigated by his cousin
Virgilio delos Santos and Vilma
Posadas.Vilma, Lenys aunt, wanted her
son to replace Exequiel as a salesman in an electrical store.Vilmas plan was made known to him by his own
employer, Raemay Co Ching.

The accused testified that on August 24, 1990, he was in his house at Vitas, Tondo, Manila,
with his live-in partner Rowena Guillero and his younger sister Merly Mahinay.[18]
On September 3, 1997, he moved to No. 63 G. San Diego Street, Canumay,
Valenzuela City, about twenty meters from the house of his cousin Virgilio.[19]
On October 5, 1997, at 5:30 p.m., he was with Virgilio at the
latters house playing tong-its with
Roy Moreno.Leny was outside playing
with Virgilios children.The accused
ordered Leny and the other children to look for his wife Rowena at No.
21-A G. San Diego Street, Canumay, ValenzuelaCity.The children returned at 6:00 p.m. and told the accused that they were not able to
find Rowena.[20]
Leny and her companions asked for money to buy candy.Since the accused had no loose change, he
gave Leny and her companions a P100 bill to buy tocino.As they were unable
to buy any, the accused ordered them to buy eggs instead.The children did as they were told, and the
accused gave Leny P20 afterwards.Leny and her companions then asked permission to watch television in his
house.The accused agreed.[21]
By 6:30 p.m., when the accused went
back home to have dinner, Leny and her companions were no longer there.He went back to Virgilios house, and resumed
playing tong-its.By then, there were already many
players.Virgilios wife, Florida,
was accepting bets for the ending in a basketball game and it was agreed that
the winner would buy beer.The accused
and the other players then had a drinking spree in front of Virgilios
house.By midnight,
the accused had consumed five glasses of beer and went back home.[22]
When he woke up at 6:30 a.m., he took
a bath.Florida
then arrived and asked him if he had given Leny some money the night
before.When he asked what the problem
was, she replied that while she was looking for her own money, she discovered
that Leny had P300 with her.When
she asked where the money had come from, Leny replied that it was given to her
by the accused.The accused explained
that he gave Leny P20 because she and her playmates asked for money so
that they could buy candy.Florida
forthwith looked for Leny and scolded her for receiving money from the accused.[23]

On January 11, 1998,
the accused was arrested without any warrant therefor and was also charged with
the rape of Ellen.[24]

After due trial, the trial court rendered judgment on July 9,
1999, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape, the
decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, finding accused Exequiel Mahinay Guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as charged, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with the accessory
penalties prescribed by the law and to pay the costs.

He is likewise ordered to indemnify the child victim the amount of P50,000.00
plus P50,000.00 moral damages.

The accused, now the appellant, assails the decision of the trial
court contending that:

THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[26]

The appellant avers that the prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt his guilt for the crime charged.He asserts that in the crime of rape, the
testimony of the offended party is ordinarily most vital and must be received
with greatest caution.The victims
testimony must be credible and must bear the stamp of truth and candor.He contends that in this case, the testimony
of the private complainant is incredible, besides being inconsistent.He argues that it is incredible that the
private complainant was able to narrate before the trial court the lurid
details of her deflowerization despite her testimony on cross-examination that
she lost consciousness when the appellant raped her.He insists that the claim of the private
complainant, that she shouted for thirty minutes without anybody hearing her
and rushing to her succor is, likewise, incredible.Another concoction is her claim that she was
raped by the appellant for four hours.Leny could not have known that she was raped for four hours since, as
testified to by her, she regained consciousness only when she was already in
their house.Moreover, on direct
examination, she testified that the appellant gave her P300 after she
was raped, only to contradict herself, on cross-examination, when she testified
that she was given the amount before she was raped.Because she was unconscious at the time, she
could not have known that the appellant gave her P300.The appellant contends that the trial court
should have acquitted him instead of finding him guilty of the crime charged.

For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that
the trial court found the testimony of Leny worthy of belief.High respect is given to the factual findings
of the trial court unless it is shown that certain facts of value have been
plainly overlooked which, if considered, would affect the result of the case;
no such facts were shown to have been overlooked in this case.

The appeal lacks merit.

We note from the evidence of the
prosecution that Leny was below 12 years old when the appellant had carnal
knowledge of her.Born on April 13, 1986, Leny was only eleven
years and four months old at the time of the alleged rape on August 24, 1997.Carnal knowledge of a girl under 12 years of
age is statutory rape under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal
Code.Such offense is established upon
proof that the accused sexually violated the offended party who was under 12
years of age at the time of the sexual assault.Consent of the offended party is immaterial.[27]
Being of tender age, she is presumed not to have any will of her own.[28]
The use of force or intimidation is not an element of statutory rape.[29]

The fact that the offended party
was under 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crime is an
essential element of the crime and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.It must also be alleged in the
Information/criminal complaint as mandated by the Rules of Criminal Procedure
which reads:

SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. A complaint or
information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation
of the offense by the statute; the acts of omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time
of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was
committed.

When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them
shall be included in the complaint or information.[30]

Even if the prosecution proved beyond cavil that the victim was
below 12 years old when the appellant raped her, he cannot be convicted of
statutory rape if the age of the victim was not alleged in the Information
because he would thereby be deprived of his right to be informed of the nature
of the charge against him.[31]
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove by presenting Lenys birth
certificate, that she was only 11 years and 4 months old when the appellant had
carnal knowledge of her.As this was not
alleged in the Information, the appellant cannot be convicted of statutory
rape.However, he may still be found
guilty of rape under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code[32]
since it was alleged in the Information that, by means of force and
intimidation employed upon the person of Leny, the appellant succeeded in
having sexual intercourse with her.

In this case, the prosecution did muster the requisite quantum of
evidence that the appellant succeeded in raping Leny by using force and
intimidation, thus:

QAfter that, what
happened?

AAfter that, he suddenly
told me to go with him to look for Ate Rowena.

QWhat about Nonoy, was (sic)
he go with you?

ANo, sir, he instructed
Nonoy to go ahead.

QWhat happened when you
were with him looking for Ate Rowena?

AThen he brought me
outside of the place fronting the house of Ate Rowena.

QWhat was the condition of
the place, was it grassy or cemented or what?

AGraddy (sic)
place, sir.

QWhen you reached that
grassy portion of the place in front of Aling Nenas house, what did he do, if
any?

AHe pulled me.

QAfter that what did he
do?

AI did not go with him
and I attempted to run.

QWhat happened when you
attempted to run, were you able to run?

ANo, sir.

QWhy?

AHe suddenly held my
hands.

QAnd after he held you by
your hands, what did he do?

AThen he undressed me.

QAfter removing your
t-shirt, what was the next part of your clothing did he remove?

AMy bra, sir.

QAfter removing your bra,
what was the next part of your clothe (sic) was removed?

AMy short, sir.

QAfter your short, what
did he remove next?

AMy panty.

QAfter you were totally
naked, what did he do next?

AThen he undressed
himself.

QWhat was the first part
of his clothing that he removed?

AHis shirt.

QAfter his shirt, what
come (sic) next?

AShort.

QAfter the short?

AHis brief, sir.

QAfter he removed the
brief, what did you see if any?

AHis penis.

QWhat was the condition of
the penis when you saw it?

AIts hard, sir.

QAfter you saw his hard
penis, what did he do next?

AThen put himself on top
of me.

QWhat did you do, did you
shout?

AYes, sir.

QWhat happened when you
shouted?

AWhen I shouted he
suddenly choked me.

QAfter choking you, what
other things did he do, if any, aside from choking you?

AWhen he choked me, he
suddenly inserted his penis to my vagina.

QWhat did you feel when he
inserted his penis to your vagina?

AIt was painful, sir.

QAfter feeling pain, what
happened next?

AI felt something hot
inside my vagina.

QWhat were you doing when
he was inserting his penis into your vagina?

The testimony of Leny was corroborated by Dr. Jose Marquezs
report that when the victim was subjected to a genital examination, he found a
fleshy-type hymen with a deep-healed laceration at 5 oclock and a shallow-healed one at 3 and 9 oclock positions.We have held that when the testimony of a
rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to
warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has
thereby been established.[34]

The trial court found the testimony of Leny positive,
straightforward and credible, and deserving of full probative weight.The legal aphorism is that the findings of
the trial court, its calibration and assessment of the testimonial evidence of
the witnesses, and its conclusion based on its findings are accorded by the
appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect.This is because of the trial courts unique
advantage of observing at close range the conduct, demeanor and deportment of
the witnesses as they testify.An
exception to this rule is when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if
considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[35]
We have minutiosely reviewed the records and found no basis to deviate from the
findings of the trial court, that the appellant in fact raped Leny.

As an aftermath of the appellants threats, Leny feared for her
life and those of her family and thus kept the devastating incident to
herself.She even had to stop her
schooling.However, when Leny learned
that the appellant had also raped her younger sister Ellen, she found courage
to reveal her ordeal to her Aunt Vilma, that the appellant had earlier raped
her on August 24, 1997:

QDo you know of a certain
person by the name of Ellen?

AYes, sir.

QWhy do you know her?

AShe is my sister, sir.

QIs she your younger
sister or older sister of you (sic)?

AShe is younger than me,
sir.

QOf your personal
knowledge, do you know what happened to her?

AYes, sir.

QWhat is that thing that
you know about your sister?

AI was in the province
when I received a letter reporting that she was raped.

Leny later told her mother that the appellant had raped her.Leny explained to her mother that she was
afraid to reveal the matter earlier because the appellant had threatened to
kill her and all the members of her family:

QWhere did you talk to
her?

AIn Valenzuela.

QWhere in Valenzuela did
you talk [with] your daughter?

AAt the house of my
nephew.

QWhere is that?

ASan
Diego, Valenzuela, Metro Manila.

QMadam Witness, what was
the conversation about?

AThat she was raped by
her Kuya Ese.

QIf you stated Ese, do
you refer to the accused in this case?

AYes, sir.

QIf he is inside the
courtroom, could (sic) you be able to point to him?

AYes, sir.

(Witness pointing to a person inside the courtroom, who when asked
his name answered Exequiel Mahinay)

FISCAL RAZON:(To the
witness)

QNow, Madam Witness, aside
from telling you that she was raped, did she also tell the date and place where
she was raped?

AAugust 24, 1997.

QAnd where?

AIn front of the store of
Nena.

QUpon being informed that
your daughter Leny Riovaldez was raped by the accused in this case, what step
did you take, if any?

AI got mad because she
did not tell me at once.

QAfter that, what did you
do?

AI pulled her hair and I
asked her why did she not tell me at once and she tell (sic) me that if
she will tell it to me, the accused will kill all of us.

QAfter that, what did you
do, did you bring her to any hospital for examination?

There are lapses and inconsistencies in Lenys testimony, but
such lapses or inconsistencies do not weaken her credibility and derail her
testimony.It is a hornbook doctrine
that the testimony of a witness must be considered in its entirety and not by
truncated portions or isolated passages thereof.[38]
Besides, it is an accepted rule that the credibility of a rape victim is not
impaired by mere inconsistencies, if there are any, in her testimony.Inconsistencies are to be expected of young
victims of heinous crimes, such as Leny, who was barely 11 years old when the
appellant raped her.Protracted and
grueling cross-examination of a young girl, not accustomed to public trial, may
produce contradictions that may not necessarily destroy her credibility.[39]
Error-free testimonies cannot be expected of a young witness who is recounting
details of a harrowing, traumatic, humiliating, and painful experience such as
rape, one which even an adult would like to bury into the deepest recesses of
oblivion.[40]

For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness
to serve as basis for acquittal, such must refer to the significant facts vital
to the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged.An inconsistency which has nothing to do with
the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused.[41]
Even if the offended party may have erred in some aspects of her testimony, the
same does not necessarily impair her testimony nor corrode her credibility.The modern trend of jurisprudence is that the
testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part,
depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and
improbabilities of the case.The
doctrine of FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN
OMNIBUS deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule
of law, and the same is not an inflexible one of universal application.[42]
What is vital is that the act of copulation be proven under any of the
conditions enumerated in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659.[43]

Leny erred when she testified that she was raped for four hours,
lost consciousness after the appellant raped her and regained consciousness
when she was already in the house.Her
testimony that the appellant put P900 in her pocket after raping
her but took back P600 is inconsistent with her testimony that the
appellant placed P900 in her pocket before she was raped.This is further inconsistent with her sworn
statement that the appellant placed the money in her pocket after the
rape.Such errors or inconsistencies,
however, pertain only to peripheral and collateral matters and not to the
essential elements of the crime charged.

The Court is convinced, as the trial court was, that the
appellant is guilty of the crime charged.

First.Leny shouted for
help at the top of her voice but the appellant covered her mouth with his hand.[44]

Second.On the initial
cross-examination by the appellants counsel, Leny testified that she lost
consciousness after the appellant had raped her,[45]
and on redirect examination, Leny testified that she merely felt dizzy but did
not lose consciousness.[46]
Thus, she was still conscious when the appellant undressed her and inserted his
penis into her vagina.She felt pain and
even felt the appellant licking her vagina with his tongue and saw him spit on
her private parts.[47]
It was only after the appellant had consummated his sexual assault on Leny that
the latter felt dizzy on account of the pain she was feeling and her persistent
struggling.It bears stressing that the
appellant was 29 years old while Leny was only an 11-year-old wisp of a girl.

Third.Whether the
appellant gave P300 before or after the rape is immaterial.The evidence on record inscrutably shows that
the appellant intimidated Leny and forced her to submit to his lustful desires.

Fourth.Whether Leny lost
consciousness or became dizzy before or after the appellant gave her P300
is, likewise, irrelevant because by then, she had already been raped by the
appellant, and the crime had already been consummated.Significantly, even the appellant admitted
that he gave money to Leny, although he claimed that he gave her P20
with which to buy candies.

Fifth.Leny was merely 11
years old when she was raped by no less than her uncle.It is inconceivable for a young girl,
inexperienced with the ways of the world, to fabricate a charge of defloration,
undergo a medical examination of her private parts, subject herself to public
ridicule and tarnish her familys honor and reputation unless she was motivated
by a potent desire to seek justice for the outrageous wrong committed against
her.[48]
It is highly absurd that Leny would concoct a reprehensible story of rape,
undergo the scandal of a public trial, recount the ugly details of her
harrowing experience, and be subjected to harassment, embarrassment and
humiliation during grueling cross-examination unless she was indeed raped.[49]

The trial court awarded to Leny P50,000 as civil indemnity
and P50,000 as moral damages, but failed to award exemplary
damages.Leny is entitled to exemplary
damages to deter uncles with perverse tendencies and aberrant behaviors from
sexually abusing their nieces.[50]

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the Decision of the RegionalTrialCourtofValenzuelaCity,
Branch 171, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.The appellant Exequiel Mahinay is found guilty of simple rape defined in
and penalized by Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Republic Act No. 7659, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the
accessory penalties prescribed by law; and to pay to the victim Leny Riovaldez P50,000
as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; and P25,000 as
exemplary damages; and costs.